Apparently he meant they just weren't part of the offical Iraq Army -- you know, the legal one. (Well, yeah, moron.) Or who knows what he meant? Even he doesn't know:

His latest swipe is about this post, where I show a British Channel 4 video showing Shiite soldiers beating Sunnis on a joint patrol with U.S. forces. I describe the victims as "civilians," which gives Mickey an opening to ignore the point I was making and accuse me of inaccuracy. Hey, it gets him up in the afternoon. I referred to them as civilians because they are residents of the neighborhood, not in uniform, and unarmed, as compared with the soliders in Iraqi army uniform. Mickey protests because the video clearly shows the beaten men had mortars in their car. So they're not civilians, right? That depends on who is or is not a civilian in a messy civil war like the one we're now policing. The insurgents are civilians in as much as they are not in the Iraqi army, not in uniform, and often residents of a neighborhood. But they are not civilians in as much as they are engaged in a violent insurgency - actively or passively.

Hah. They're not civilians "in as much" as they're combatants. I.e., they're not civilians "in as much" as they're not civilians.

This, I guess, is as close as we can hope for a retraction/correction/apology from St. Andrew of the Sacred Heart-Ache (who'll sell you back your conservative soul at bargain-basement remainder-bin prices).

Can't wait for that novel.

The post has further updates on the four-not-destroyed-mosques false reportage from AP.